[SK] Jennifer Aniston hasn’t always been so outspoken when it comes to hot topics, but lately, she’s taking on the antiquated views of women and aging with aplomb. The 53-year-old actress wants to remind everyone that growing older happens to everyone (if you get that wonderful privilege to live a long life), and we need to embrace the beauty of it instead of demonizing it.
In an interview with E! News, she comes right out and states the facts, "Universally, we’re all going to grow up and get old. You can’t deny that, that is a guarantee." Aniston is right, there is no magic wand that is going to allow us to chronologically age backward, but we can "be vital and we can be thriving in our older years." She wants to toss out any offensive notions that the older generation doesn’t have anything to offer.
I'm not picking on Ms. Aniston here, just using the opportunity to scratch my own brow.
Sure seems like, for a profession of people who pride themselves on influencing or even broaching topics, they sure ended up late in life and disappointed, despite the lifestyles of the rich and famous.
I cannot for the life of me point at one and say, that person had a full life, married well, and is enjoying grandmother/fatherhood to its fullest, and I can tell from the latest movie.
#6
...TRANSLATION: The only attention she's getting these days is on the front pages of the tabloids, and that shiat does NOT pay the bills.
/According to some of the tabs, she's going to announce her fifteenth or sixteenth multiple pregnancy by Brad Pitt any time now
//Don't judge me; you gotta do something after you pass your second hour in line at WalMart
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
02/12/2022 12:10 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I have a near-topic ponder.
I guess there is a show coming out set in Norse history. Except, and its a twist!, one of the kings is going to be acted by a black gal.
In all seriousness, how does this attract more viewers? Is its intention to attract viewers or is it some fart joke history buffs just don't get, since it is akin to casting Aniston here as Chaka (Zulu)?
#8
Helen Mirren (new Mironov) has had a wonderful life and is enjoying her advanced years in style and with grace. A magnificent actress as well -- unlike this faded bit player from the semi-comic small screen
#10
Helen Mirren was really hot even late in her career, but a total moonbat all the same. Aniston's self-focus at least has kept her from saying much stupid political stuff. I really don't think she's hard to look at.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
02/12/2022 12:26 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Entertainers who have used they platform to spout nonsense deserve derision. Always. Regardless of their talent when in a role.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
02/12/2022 12:29 Comments ||
Top||
#14
I bet you can still find syndicated reruns of Friends somewhere on your TV. Actually I could never watch that show. She was very, very pretty when the show was being made but the minute her character started talking I always had to change the channel. It's true that after Friends she never gained much traction as an actress but she still looks pretty good for fifty-something. She gets paid royalties from those reruns and she's worth $millions$. I wouldn't waste any time worrying about her.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
02/12/2022 13:33 Comments ||
Top||
#15
I never watched Friends, so I have no idea what she sounds like, but she's got a great bod, has a great trainer, and seems to have a level head.
[American Thinker] A new federal terror advisory contains a threat assessment that characterizes Americans who "mislead" others into questioning government-approved messages as being on par with terrorists. That is as anti-American messaging as could be imagined. America was founded on questioning governments, foreign and domestic. And that has been her saving grace, the reason for her unique success.
The assessment specifically identifies those who engage in "the proliferation of false or misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S. government institutions" as "threat actors." It also cites "widespread online proliferation of false or misleading narratives regarding unsubstantiated widespread election fraud and COVID-19" as having a deleterious effect on government institutions.
Actually, it’s the actions of government institutions that often have a deleterious effect on (people’s views of) government institutions...and on the people. But, no matter, our First Amendment rights are out the window. 1984 is here. "Wrong-thought" has been criminalized.
If not stopped—and reversed-- this is the end of the Great Experiment and the Land of Opportunity.
So, fellow threat actors, what are we to do about this?
First off, we must realize that "misinformation" is what has typically been put out by governments since governments were instituted among men. The larger and more powerful the government in relation to the people, the more preposterous the misinformation, false narratives, outright lies and other propaganda it will churn out. And the less it will tolerate dissent and independent thought. This is a historical fact. It was true of feudal kings. Offend the king and it could be "off with your head." The Third Reich blamed all Germany’s troubles on the Jews. So it imprisoned and exterminated them. The Soviet Union killed millions of folks who didn’t toe the party line. Speak out against the government? Hello "re-education" camp or gulag. And today we have Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Eritrea, North Korea...and, of course, China. (How’s your "social credit score?" You might be about to find out.) China graciously exported the pandemic to the West, and it now appears many Western nations may be attempting to appropriate its system of government, as well. Talk about forgiveness and tolerance. Amazing. The governments of Australia, New Zealand, Austria, several other European nations, and even Canada and the United States have quickly and zealously headed down the road to tyranny.
Leftists in the U.S. are attacking the First and Second Amendments (among others). These are the essence and guarantor of our freedoms, respectively. They are marginalizing, canceling, and even incarcerating those who have the effrontery to challenge their narrative. Meaning their power. That is tyranny. That is terrorism. They are "threat actors." And they do this while accusing Trump supporters, Christians, patriots, rednecks, Rogan listeners, Republicans, rural residents, truck drivers—and anyone else with whom they disagree-- of being a "threat to our democracy."
#3
So they rigged the election and forced an experimental gene therapy on us and our children, and now they're sicc'ing their Stasi on those who call out the obvious?
This is really disturbing shit. Civil disobedience time.
#3
I dont see a nato no fly zone in ukraine, biden is talking more sanctions.
strategically germans wont allow attacks from germany, eastern med is bottle necked by russian base in western syria.
Putin has absolute power, now working on his legacy.
My bet is yeah they will attack, its not a NATO member.
All the public opinion polling data show beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is next to zero Russian public support for invading Ukraine, annexing Ukraine or even for "treating the West as an enemy." Russians overwhelmingly oppose a war with Ukraine.
Russians don't give a fvck about Ukraine; they care intensely about "resisting NATO" and its expansion into Russia's space.
At home, Putin has been emphasizing that NATO is to blame for the ratcheting up of tensions, and the public appears to share this view.Three in 4 Russians we surveyed think NATO will try to weaken their country if Putin does not stand up to it. Consistently over many years, surveys show that Russians see NATO as a threat even as they want good relations with the West.
While Russians oppose a broader conflict in Ukraine and would rather not approach the West as an antagonist, standing up to NATO is a popular theme. It’s likely that a strategy of hard-nosed and prolonged negotiations would be more popular with Putin’s domestic audience than armed intervention.
[BBC] With costs of living increasing, a ’boomerang’ period of moving back in with parents could be the norm, not the exception, for people in their 20s and 30s.
In early March 2020, Sheridan Block, 30, had just finished a year abroad in Marseilles, France, as a volunteer English teacher to refugees. She flew home to Jacksonville, Florida, to spend time with her maternal grandparents — her grandfather was recovering from health issues at the time. Her plan was to stay a few months to help care for them while also saving money, paying off some student debt and credit card bills before returning abroad.
Then, the pandemic hit. "It was kind of a spiral," says Block.
In exchange for living rent-free, she helped drive her grandparents to appointments, ran errands, cooked and did chores around the house. She ended up staying nearly two years. "I was able to save enough money to pay off all those debts that I had, to finance a car and then ultimately to move out," she explains. It was beneficial financially, she says, and good to be close to family, but it required her to adjust her ideas of what adulthood should look like.
Block is among a growing group of ’boomerang kids’ — adult children who return to their parents or grandparents’ homes after moving out. This group of adults is on the rise — and not just because of the pandemic. In July 2020, 52% of young adults in the US resided with one or both of their parents, according to a Pew Research Center analysis — the highest percentage the United States has seen since the end of the Great Depression, in 1940. In the UK, the proportion of single, child-free 20-to-34-year-olds living with their parents went up 55% between 2008 to 2017, according to research from Loughborough University.
In Western cultures particularly, moving away from home has traditionally been considered a crucial step in becoming an independent adult. But as the number of boomerang kids continues to rise in countries such as the US, UK and Canada, this may be set to change — and with it, our notion of what the stages of adult independence look like.
#1
In exchange for living rent-free, she helped drive her grandparents to appointments, ran errands, cooked and did chores around the house. She ended up staying nearly two years.
I believe most parents who have the means, would welcome the opportunity to help during these difficult times.
#2
Nothing unusual for kids to get a false start and quickly get slapped in the face with the real world, with JOBS cuts and layoffs during certain Political cycles.
But when ours returned, we were clear about one Golden House Rule. Stay as long as you need and contribute. But understand it is "Our House - Our Rules, a discussion is OK!, but your Mom & I are the final say.
#3
If as seems likely we separate from the Wokesters and create our own parallel culture with its own self-reliant communities, we will have to replace the extreme individualism of the Woke society with a traditionalist ethos based on strong families and mutual support.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
02/12/2022 8:49 Comments ||
Top||
#5
30 years old and taking a job overseas that pays nothing. She's going to be homeless when mom and dad pass away.
Posted by: Chris ||
02/12/2022 10:32 Comments ||
Top||
#6
"I was able to save enough money to pay off all those debts that I had, to finance a car and then ultimately to move out," she explains. It was beneficial financially, she says, and good to be close to family, but it required her to adjust her ideas of what adulthood should look like."
This simply sounds mature to me. Nothing wrong with volunteering to teach refugees English; I'd like to find some reason to go to Marseilles myself! But it sounds like she did the right thing for exactly the right reasons.
[Washington Examiner] The last time inflation was as bad as it is now, President Ronald Reagan was only finishing his first year in office.
Leonid Brezhnev was still alive and in charge of the Soviet Union. U2 was unknown in the United States, not yet having released the album War. The young company Apple was still two years away from launching its first Macintosh computer model.
That's how far back you have to go — February 1982 — to find a time when inflation was as bad as it was last month. It is now official that this is the worst inflation in 40 years. At 7.5%, prices are rising so quickly that they will double in less than 10 years if this rate of inflation continues.
Of course, Reagan inherited an inflation problem back in his own day. President Joe Biden, on the other hand, created his own inflation problem with the reckless spending that began his administration. With so many trillions already shoveled out the door in the form of COVID relief, Biden just couldn't resist the temptation to play Santa Claus himself. Inflation was the predictable result, and indeed one we predicted, due to a surge in deficit spending and the slowdown in production that occurred because of COVID-19.
Biden has spent the last few months attempting to compound his mistake further, spending another $5 trillion on his completely unnecessary Build Back Better boondoggle. Even now, knowing that inflation rose to 7.5% in January, Biden's White House is still calling on Congress to pass that bill, claiming, in contravention of all laws of economics, that it will make the problem better and not worse. Really? Is someone making use of all those crack pipes whose distribution to addicts Biden's Department of Health and Human Services just abruptly canceled?
[PJ] We all know the toll that inflation is taking on our everyday lives. We can see it at the gas pump, at the grocery store, and just about everywhere else we spend money.
Inflation has hit 7.5%, and we’ve just seen the largest one-month increase since 1982.
"Shortages of supplies and workers, heavy doses of federal aid, ultra-low interest rates and robust consumer spending combined to send inflation leaping in the past year," the Associated Press explains. "And there are few signs that it will slow significantly anytime soon."
And we now know just what kind of impact this level of inflation is making on American households. Ryan Sweet of Moody’s Analytics has estimated that the average U.S. household is paying $276 per month more than it did before inflation soared so high.
Sweet calculated what households pay for goods now compared to what they paid when inflation was at 2.1% in 2018 and 2019.
"It really hammers home the point of ’what is the cost of inflation?’" said Sweet.
Bear in mind that this figure is an average. Families who have spent more money on products whose prices have increased more than 7.5% are taking a bigger hit. The Wall Street Journal gives the example of washing machine prices, which have risen 12.1% over 2021.
Wells Fargo and the U.S. Department of Labor measured the price increase of various categories of goods over the past year. (This study was released at the end of January, so it reflects a Consumer Price Index increase of 7% as opposed to 7.5%.)
#2
On an average month, we Gas up 4 to 5 times. Plus we purchase Food and other common items each month for a total of about $1,150 to $1,250.
(ammo costs not included ☺)
Using my own EWAG adjustment, I would feel comfortable in saying we are easily in the MID to HIGH $300 per month for the 2021-2022 Biden tenure.
Or about $3,600 to $4,500 ++ more per year.
Come to think of it...
Doesn't that wipe out all of the 2020-2021 Biden C-19 Stimulus Checks and more, since these higher prices will be here to stay for years?
#3
My gas and electric bill by itself has gone up over $100.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
02/12/2022 13:44 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Stupid fvcks. Fracking + lower gas prices alone SAVED ordinary Americans THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS PER YEAR per household. Magoo and his gerbil worming idiots destroyed these savings, made Russia flush with oil revenues and put us on the back foot worldwide.
It's getting harder and harder to believe this colossal destruction of our wealth and independence was not deliberate.
4,000 word essay, excerpted. They think that massive US expense for their protection is normal, and have a smug sense of moral superiority.
[WarOnThe Rocks] Unfortunately, strategic thinking is something that does not come naturally to younger German foreign policymakers. In fact, it is completely alien to us. For three decades, we have been cocooned away from the harsh world of power politics. The exceptional world that we grew up in was our normal. The ideas that developed out of 1989 were our convictions. Now that geopolitics, and specifically geopolitical power politics, is back, we are lost.
I experienced this many times, but it took me a while to realize that German millennials, the oldest of whom were born in the early 1980s, think about foreign policy in a peculiar way. The longer I lived outside Germany, and specifically in countries where geopolitical and strategic thinking is more common, the more I found myself baffled by some of the discussions my peers in Germany had. This was perfectly summarized by a fellow German millennial: "Geopolitics just sounds so much like troop movement!" he declared. This epitomizes in one statement several beliefs and convictions I encounter often among my German peers: a skepticism of geopolitics, an inability to think in terms of power and interest, and a rejection of the military as an instrument of politics. German millennials think of international politics in terms of values and emotions rather than interests. Of course, values and interests are not mutually exclusive and are often linked in a way that makes them difficult to disentangle. But, as Germans, we have learned to reject the interests part of the equation completely. My generation has developed an almost romantic idea of international relations. We see alliances as friendships and disagreements in terms of value differences. And German millennials struggle with the military — specifically the idea that the military is an element of geopolitical power. This is a phenomenon already prevalent among the German population (and strong among the Green Party, which could come into power in Germany after the September elections). But it is even more pronounced among millennials, as a recent poll shows: A higher number of millennials support reducing the German defense budget than any other age group, while support for a budgetary increase is lower among millennials than among all other groups.
[Jpost] Like AT&T 40 years ago, Israel Police should be broken up into smaller, specialized agencies, regardless of the smartphone-phishing scandal that shook the country this week.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[American Thinker] A new federal terror advisory contains a threat assessment that characterizes Americans who "mislead" others into questioning government-approved messages as being on par with terrorists. That is as anti-American messaging as could be imagined. America was founded on questioning governments, foreign and domestic. And that has been her saving grace, the reason for her unique success.
[PJ] We all know the toll that inflation is taking on our everyday lives. We can see it at the gas pump, at the grocery store, and just about everywhere else we spend money.
